Bush vows to attack Iran

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 20, 2005, 5:44 pm

er... I mean "spread freedom"

http://us.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/2 ... index.html

Another sad day for America...

Marb

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 20, 2005, 6:29 pm

Don't be a tool, Marb....

It is Americas mission to spread liberty and democracy and it has been that way forever. It is often forgotten, but we are no status-quo country.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 20, 2005, 6:39 pm

It may be... but HOW we spread that freedom is what I question and disagree with Mr. Bush on 100%.

Everyone dosen't need, want nor is ready for Democracy right now. Us forcing it on them because we are too egotistical and stupid to realize our way isn't always what's best for everyone is not spreading freedom, it's empire building.

We need to spread freedom by being the best... at everything we can, not forcing our way of live down someone elses throat... IMHO.

Marb

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » January 20, 2005, 6:43 pm

Marbus wrote:It may be... but HOW we spread that freedom is what I question and disagree with Mr. Bush on 100%.

Everyone dosen't need, want nor is ready for Democracy right now. Us forcing it on them because we are too egotistical and stupid to realize our way isn't always what's best for everyone is not spreading freedom, it's empire building.

We need to spread freedom by being the best... at everything we can, not forcing our way of live down someone elses throat... IMHO.

Marb

You sir, are 100% right.

Ebumar · Post by **Ebumar** » January 20, 2005, 7:28 pm

I agree we shouldn't shove it down their throats. BUT, I would be more happy with a democratic world, than otherwise.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » January 20, 2005, 8:47 pm

Unfortunately, neither side seems capable of accepting that making a better world involves both forcing democracy on people AND applying a lighter touch as each individual circumstance allows.

The current admin. is incapable of seeing beyond costly and downright barbaric nation-building and globalization, while the too-cool-for-school activist nimrods would march their spunky little hearts out until america just rolled over and played dead.

I'd be on the side of the anti-war activists if they were actually against immoral and unwinnable wars, but it seems they're just against the very concept of conflict. Which is just unrealistic. And frankly, kinda gay.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 20, 2005, 9:49 pm

I dunno, I don't think that many of the people in the anti-war marches are against war per se.. but they do expect there to be a clear and present danger to themselves or their allies, or even for that matter an invading force to repel.

I don't recall that much noise about Gulf War Part I...

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 21, 2005, 6:43 am

Lol Niff

You are right to a point, but to tar everyone who was against the Iraq war with the "pacifist weener" brush is wrong.

Anyway wasn't there another superpower that vowed to export its own particular political creed to the entire world whether they wanted it or not? What happened to them?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 21, 2005, 9:28 am

Re: Iran, I'll quote Jerry Seinfeld "Good luck with all that"

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » January 21, 2005, 2:08 pm

According to A Flock of Seagulls .. Iran is so far away. We couldn't get away.

Spooky.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » January 21, 2005, 7:06 pm

It's naive to think freedom will just start springing up nonviolently. It doesn't happen. Either you believe freedom is a right afforded to all (and suppressed by some governments) or you could care less if there was another Stalin or Milosevic. Based on that you either act on your beliefs or you don't. Bush believes the former and plans to act. I can respect that and hope that he does it in the most effective way possible.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 21, 2005, 7:17 pm

Also in Bush's speech, although this isn't really getting reported:

“This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities.”

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » January 21, 2005, 7:58 pm

Rekaar. wrote:It's naive to think freedom will just start springing up nonviolently. It doesn't happen. Either you believe freedom is a right afforded to all (and suppressed by some governments) or you could care less if there was another Stalin or Milosevic. Based on that you either act on your beliefs or you don't. Bush believes the former and plans to act. I can respect that and hope that he does it in the most effective way possible.

Freedom is also earned. Americans should know thism ost of all since they earned their freedom from the british.

If the people really wanted freedom, then they would rise up and fight for it.

What Bush is doing is coming in and destroying administrations that don't embrace the american way of life and view of freedom.

It's much more opportunistic than it is altruistic.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » January 21, 2005, 9:55 pm

Certainly it's opportunistic. Only a moron would actually believe the U.S. is fighing for the "freedom" of other nations. "Fighting for freedom" just makes it a lot easier to swallow when we talk about it. An equally vital, but less heroic-sounding effort is what is actually happening, and that's pacifying nations that could potentially hurt us (at least that's the war the american people are supporting. You're welcome to debate whether or not that's the president's goal).

Surely no one's honestly fooled. One only fights for the 'freedom' of those countries who might have weapons that could kill americans, and leaders that would be only too happy to. Everyone else can enjoy their warlords.

True freedom can only be won by the people. It can't be granted by someone else, even if that WAS the purpose. War's good for pacification though, and sometimes that's just as important.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 22, 2005, 12:24 pm

a lot of people can name 10 countrys off the top of there heads that are/were under MUCH greater opression then saddam hussien brought.

im not against all conflict, i agreed 100% with afghanistan, and believe it is our duty to continue to promote freedom there, instead we have greatly abandoned afghanistan (several warlords have now seized much political controll) for bushs next little game....iraq...now that thats getting kinda boring its time to move on...IN REALITY neither iraq or afghanistan will be functioning, free, democracys for at least another 10-20 years if ever...yet this entire time we have had the oportunity to invest the same efforts that we put into iraq to continue hunting and killing terrorist in afganistan and hunting down terrorist (not nations, TERRORIST) worldwide

nobody · Post by **nobody** » January 22, 2005, 5:50 pm

Xzion wrote:a lot of people can name 10 countrys off the top of there heads that are/were under MUCH greater opression then saddam hussien brought.

im not against all conflict, i agreed 100% with afghanistan, and believe it is our duty to continue to promote freedom there, instead we have greatly abandoned afghanistan (several warlords have now seized much political controll) for bushs next little game....iraq...now that thats getting kinda boring its time to move on...IN REALITY neither iraq or afghanistan will be functioning, free, democracys for at least another 10-20 years if ever...yet this entire time we have had the oportunity to invest the same efforts that we put into iraq to continue hunting and killing terrorist in afganistan and hunting down terrorist (not nations, TERRORIST) worldwide

ismail khan who is a 'warlord' is someone the afghani's actually WANT in power. he has provided stability and a better quality of life for the people in herat. he is not a perfect choice but he is a step forward. i just hope we continue to move forward there. i feel bad for the people there. before the russian invasion, afghanistan was actually more advanced than pakistan at the time. right now i see the most difficult long term problem in afghanistan is the opium. democracy is moving forward but i agree that it will be another 10-20 years until they are the kind of decomcracy they want to be. had we not invaded iraq it would be more like 5-10 i think.